Order Description
the scenario question is:
M, an academic at UNSW, is conducting research into the threat of terrorism in Australia. As part of his research, he interviewed several people, including an ABC journalist, Mr Z, who claims to have spoken with a number of “extremists” of a Sydney group of the Lakemba mosque camping club who are reported to go on regular camping trips to the bush. Mr Z reports that in his meeting with the “extremists” he was shown a manual on how to build explosives and a set of postcards of Australian landmarks, such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge. M refers to Mr Z’s story in a footnote in one of his academic articles. Due to his radical libertarian views and his rebellious nature, M has long been a person of interest to the domestic security agency ASIO and the NSW Police. ASIO subsequently detains M for 6 days and 23 hours for questioning, after which he is released without charge. In detention, M was allowed to contact his barrister friend B. However, when B arrived to assist M, he was refused access to M, as there were concerns about his integrity given that he had represented a member of the Lakemba camping club on another occasion. In the meantime, questioning of M was initiated in the absence of a lawyer. M then contacts barrister friend D who was granted access to M, but who was not allowed to intervene in the question process. M was also threatened that he would “rot in jail” if he refused to disclose the sources and research connected to his article
Have M’s rights under the ICCPR been violated?